The exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. requires the allegations to prima facie constitute an offence, the absence of mala fide intentions, and the presence of a legal bar for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

R.K. Pattanaik, J. - The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 5th January, 2011 for having taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 IPC in ICC Case No.698 of 2010 by the leaned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on the grounds inter alia that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and the opposite party should have availed remedy before a civil court and not by filing a complaint and setting the criminal law into motion.

2. As per the facts revealed by the petitioners, the opposite party, namely, complainant had approached them for purchasing a plot and in that connection, an agreement under Annexure-1 was entered into on 30th April, 2002. It is further made to appear that as per the aforesaid agreement, opposite party was to pay a sum of Rs.32,000/- towards purchase of the land in equal monthly installments of Rs.800/- per month besides other charges payable at the time of registration of the sale deed and in addition to the above, an amount of Rs.5,000/- to be paid at the time of booking the plot. It is claimed by the petitioners that the opposite party filed a complaint alleging some overt acts against them with regard to an incident dated 18th February, 2010 which never happened. That apart, the petitioners contend that the dispute arises out of a contract and hence, the criminal proceeding is not tenable in law and is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice leaving the opposite party to go for a civil remedy.

3. Heard Mr. A. Bagchi, leaned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Lenka, learned counsel for the opposite party.

4. Mr. Bagchi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there has been considerable delay on the part of the opposite party to approach the court by filing a complaint which therefore should not have been entertained by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. A ground of limitation has been raised and in that respect, Mr. Bagchi cited a decision of this Court in the case of Chandra Sekhar Mohanty Vrs. Japani Sahoo 2006 (II) OLR 133. It is further contended that considering the civil nature of the dispute since the parties have had an agreement in the year 2002, the opposite party ought to have approached the civil court for the pending dues, however, without any reason and justification filed the complaint and the same was entertained by the court below. While contending so, Mr. Bagchi, learned counsel for the petitioners relies on one more decision of this Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and another Vrs. Rajiv Dubey 2008 (16) SCALE 62, wherein, it has been held that in some categories of cases, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised. It is contended that apart from the fact that the dispute is civil in nature, the opposite party filed the complaint with a malicious intention so as to coerce the petitioners to refund the money which is one of the categories indicated in the decision (supra). In response to the above, Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the opposite party would submit that though there is an agreement between the parties but that cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceeding which is filed with regard to a specific incident dated 18th February, 2010.

5. Though the opposite party alleged cheating and fraud against the petitioners and accordingly, filed the complaint, however the learned court below while taking cognizance of the offences confined it to the incident dated 18th February, 2010 and consequently, passed the impugned order dated 5th January, 2011. In other words, the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar took cognizance of the offences under Sections 294 and 506 IPC and proceeded to summon the petitioners.

6. Now the question is, whether, in the aforesaid backdrop, inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding as has been prayed for by the petitioners on the ground of delay and also the dispute being civil in nature? As the law is we